Monitor Modules for Flow/Tampers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gategator37

Senior Member
Does a monitor module have to be within site of its device (tamper/flow) or can it be located at the FACP? Please let me know the code reference if there is one and thanks for your help.
 

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
Does a monitor module have to be within site of its device (tamper/flow) or can it be located at the FACP? Please let me know the code reference if there is one and thanks for your help.

what brand are you using, it probably doesn't matter. the circuit resistance is what is the qualifier. Firelite is no more than 1.5K Ohms. Silent Knight SD500-AIM is 50 ohms max. Also, there is a max alarm current, but you wont have really any on a dry contact flow switch.

Are you looking to take over a conventional FACP and install an addressable one with all the modules at the panel?

If so that is very common. You could send out the SLC and put the modules at the devices, but that is unwise, and a waste. If you are totally upgrading a system, full blown addressable, that's different.

If you have an inspector telling you it needs to be in site, kindly ask for a code reference, you won't get it, aside from a local amendment.

If you can, get some loop isolation modules in the system if you are doing the conventional to addressable upgrade.
 
Last edited:

MichaelGP3

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco bay area
Occupation
Fire Alarm Technician
If the flow and tamper switches are located outdoors, I would advise locating the monitor modules indoors, since the weatherproof boxes you install outside may not remain weatherproof in the fullness of time. Sealing the inside of the conduit is something else I've done. Keeping moisture/condensation away from modules = modules living to a ripe old age.
 

MichaelGP3

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco bay area
Occupation
Fire Alarm Technician
..... You could send out the SLC and put the modules at the devices, but that is unwise, and a waste. .....

I'm having difficulty understanding what makes this both "unwise, and a waste." Not enough information was furnished by the OP; there is more about this case that we don't know than what we do know.
 

nhfire77

Senior Member
Location
NH
I'm having difficulty understanding what makes this both "unwise, and a waste." Not enough information was furnished by the OP; there is more about this case that we don't know than what we do know.

OK, yes, we don't know everything. I assumed a few things to make that statement.

If you are taking a conventional panel and picking up all the zones at the panel, not changing out all the devices, typically its a money issue. (isn't it always)

If the tampers were commingled with flows then yes by all means. If there were just tampers on a conventional zone, then put the module at the FACP. IMO.

The unwise comment came out of a specific situation that I had it mind. Since none of us are mind readers allow me to tell you: I had a 180,000 sq ft 6 six story mill building. It was wired by, probably 800 different guys and was a nightmare. The conventional FACP had a terminal trouble (double entendre?) . We received the OK to just pick up the conventional zones at the existing panel location and put them on modules there. There was no plans/requirements to upgrade the system, so this was the most cost effective. The reason I feel sending the SLC out throughout the building was bad, is because of the wirings exact condition was not completely known and it worried me that having 20+ legs of SLC without isolation modules leaves you open to having the entire loop go down from one short on one of those loops.

I know, this is not the situation in the OP, its not always unwise, it just needs to be tempered with good planning, which is often overlooked in retrofitting FACP's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top